ADVANTAGE WEST PALM BEACH, INC., BERT MOERINGS, AND MARSHA MOERINGS, APPELLANTS,
v.
WEST PALM BEACH COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, INC., APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Appellants claimed they were entitled to compensation for 'development rights' created by a City ordinance as part of an eminent domain taking. The trial court found these development rights had no value, did not exist separately from the underlying land, and were not transferable property interests. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the ordinance did not create transferrable development rights for which compensation was due.
Appellants are not entitled to compensation for development rights because the DRI did not create a species of property known as transferrable development rights, these rights do not exist separate from the underlying land, and appellants hold no separate compensable property interest.
[1] Development rights are not compensable property interests if they are not created by ordinance and are not severable from the underlying realty.
[2] A municipality is not estopped from contesting the assignability or value of alleged development rights if those rights were not created by its ordinances.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The development rights in question have no value. They were not created by the [*756] enactment of the DRI. They do not exist separate and apart from the underlying realty. They were not severable from the realty.”
The trial court's core holding that the claimed development rights lack independent existence and value
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe City of West Palm Beach enacted Ordinance No. 2268-89, known as the Downtown Uptown Development of Regional Impact (DRI). Appellants Advantage Wes…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Inconsistent Positions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The issue in this case is whether appellants are entitled to compensation for certain “development rights” as part of a taking in eminent domain. Appellants contended that these development rights were created by City of West Palm Beach Ordinance No. 2268-89, as amended, referred to as the Downtown Uptown Development of Regional Impact (“DRI”). After a three-day trial on this issue, the trial court entered a concise, well reasoned final judgement which held:
The development rights in question have no value. They were not created by the enactment of the DRI. They do not exist separate and apart from the underlying realty. They were not severable from the realty.
Neither the City nor the Community Redevelopment Agency is estopped in any way from contesting the assignability or value of the subject development rights assigned to Advantage.
These “rights” did not exist to be transferred or assigned.
[Appellants], Advantage West Palm Beach, Inc., Bert Moerings and Marsha Moerings hold no separate, compensable property interest known as development rights, are due no compensation from the West Palm Beach Community Redevelopment Agency and hold no apportionment claim against the owners of land within the DRI.
We agree with the final judgment entered by the trial court. The DRI did not create a species of property known as transferrable development rights. Unlike Palm Beach County, the City of West Palm Beach has never adopted a Transfer of Development Rights Ordinance. Neither the language of the DRI, nor the development process contemplated by the ordinance, support the conclusion that transferrable development rights were created for which appellants are entitled to be compensated. The opaque references by the City’s attorney during a closing argument in a different case did not give rise to an estoppel against inconsistent positions. This is not the rare and exceptional case that justifies the application of the doctrine of equitable estoppel. See State Dep’t of Revenue v. Anderson, 403 So. 2d 397, 400 (Fla. 1981).
AFFIRMED.
POLEN, GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING AND/OR EN BANC REHEARING AND FOR CERTIFICATION
PER CURIAM.
Appellants’ motions for rehearing, rehearing en bane, and for certification are denied. Appellants misread the panel opinion when they assert that the decision “plainly states that the existence of an enactment controlling the transfers of development rights (TDRs) is a prerequisite to a compensable taking of so-called “floating” development rights.” As appellee correctly points out, the panel opinion is “predicated entirely on the specific language of the subject DRI Development Order.”
POLEN, GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.